Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Floor Speech

CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 -- (Senate - January 29, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, the SCHIP legislation the Senate is considering this week purports to provide more health insurance for our Nation's poorest children. But in truth, the bill shortchanges the neediest of children in States such as Mississippi.

Instead of paying taxpayer dollars for our poorest children, those who need health insurance the most, the bill we are considering today gives taxpayer-funded health insurance to middle-class families in wealthy States. The SCHIP bill we will be voting on today does nothing to ensure that all American children under 200 percent of the poverty level have health insurance. In fact, the bill diverts this important program, which I have supported for years, away from its intended purpose. SCHIP was designed to cover low-income children between 100 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level. That comes to $22,000 to $44,000 per year for a family of four. These families require assistance under SCHIP because they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but they are not able to afford private health coverage for their children. This was the intent of SCHIP.

What we ought to be doing in this bill is prioritizing low-income American children and making sure as many uninsured poor kids as possible are covered under the increased funding we are going to provide. Instead, this bill allows States to expand their programs without demonstrating they have covered the poorest children first. In my State of Mississippi, for example, SCHIP covers 65,000 children, but there are another 30,000 children below 200 percent of the poverty level who are without health insurance. This bill would not cover those children, even with the expanded funding.

Other States that are similarly situated include Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, North Carolina, and Arkansas. I urge the Senators from those States to join me in an effort to correct this inequity. I urge all Senators to make this bill better so we make sure we include poorest of the poor children first.

In the past decade since SCHIP was created, the number of uninsured poor children has decreased from 28 percent to 15 percent. But we cannot, in the face of that success story, neglect the remaining 15 percent. Many of them are in the States I have mentioned.

Fifteen percent of America's poorest children still do not have health care, and we are debating a bill that would expand SCHIP beyond its intended purpose, to cover higher income families and other adults.

SCHIP allotments in fiscal year 2009 will be $5 billion. Under this bill we would almost double that amount to $9 billion per year. But only an additional $79 million is needed to cover these poor uncovered children in States such as Mississippi. If we are going to almost double the size of the program, we ought to make sure poorest of the poor are covered.

If this bill were really about health care for poor children, we would guarantee each State sufficient funds to cover every child in a family below 200 percent of the poverty level. It is that simple. And we would do that before moving on to cover more affluent families in the more affluent States.

Senator Cochran and I have submitted an amendment that would do that. Our amendment would prohibit States from receiving funds to cover individuals above 200 percent of the poverty level until we can guarantee that 90 percent--not 100 percent but 90 percent--of the poorest children nationwide are covered.

The result of our amendment would be that the more affluent States would simply have to wait if they want to cover middle-class children, if they want to cover families making as much as $88,000 a year or more. They would have to wait until the poorest of the poor children in Mississippi and Arkansas and North Carolina and North Dakota and Nebraska and Iowa are covered.

I have been watching the votes this week. It appears the leadership has locked in a majority to resist amendments of this nature. I thought the bill was about making it easier to cover children under 200 percent of the poverty level--between 100 percent and 200 percent. If amendments such as that of Senator Cochran and myself are not agreed to, we have to wonder is the real intent of this legislation to replace our private health care system with a government-run system at the expense of people who need help the most?

One of my colleagues yesterday said we are ruining SCHIP. I have to concur with that, if this legislation is not amended. I urge my colleagues to join me in bringing the focus of SCHIP back where it belongs, on helping poor children.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source